Skip to content

Clover Hill Diaries – Join Me and Be the Change

#Strongwomen. "I write about the power of trying, because I want to be okay with failing. I write about generosity because I battle selfishness. I write about joy because I know sorrow. I write about faith because I almost lost mine, and I know what it is to be broken and in need of redemption. I write about gratitude because I am thankful – for all of it." Kristin Armstrong

  • Home
  • Empowering Sustainable and Just Futures
  • SynergyScape Solutions – Embracing the Grey – My Journey in Values and Communication
Clover Hill Diaries – Join Me and Be the Change

Category: Behind the Byline

What If We’re Teaching the Wrong History?

 

When I was at school, history was dates and battles, World War I, World War II, Gallipoli, the Depression. But even back then, 55 years ago, the Middle East was in turmoil, Southeast Asia was shifting under our feet, and Indigenous voices in Australia were demanding to be heard. None of that made it into the classroom.

We were taught facts. Not how to think about them.

No one ever asked: What can we learn from history? How do we hold different perspectives? What does it mean to disagree respectfully? Or to understand where someone else is coming from, even when we don’t agree?

And it matters, because if history doesn’t teach us how to listen, how to think, how to judge wisely, then we’re not learning history. We’re learning trivia.

Chris Wallace, a historian and professor, says the same thing in a recent ABC interview. She argues that decades of neoliberalism have narrowed the purpose of education into something transactional, training people to “get a job,” not become thoughtful citizens. History and literature have been among the first subjects to be cut. They’re seen as “nice to have,” not “must have.”

But what do we lose when we strip those subjects away?

We lose critical thinking. We lose wisdom. We lose the kind of broad understanding that helps societies steer through complexity without being manipulated by loud voices or narrow interests. As Wallace puts it, we end up with people in elite positions “who are highly trained—but not deeply educated.”

She’s not just talking about university. She’s talking about a mindset. And it’s showing up in the way we do democracy, especially at the local level.

We talk a lot about “community consultation” in local government. But let’s be honest, most of the time, it’s just a box-ticking exercise. Surveys, feedback forms, public meetings that go nowhere. We capture mass opinion, but we don’t help people work through the hard stuff: trade-offs, values, vision.

Jay Weatherill, the former SA Premier, says public opinion sits on a continuum—from magical thinking (“lower taxes and better services for all!”) to mature public judgement. And it’s the job of leadership to help us move along that line. Not by preaching. Not by pretending to have all the answers. But by creating space for proper dialogue.

That’s what good history teaches us too. That life is complex. That truth depends on where you’re standing. That understanding how we got here helps us work out where we go next.

It’s no wonder students are disengaging. As Wallace says, if you remove meaningful options, if there’s no space to explore Australia’s political history, social history, Indigenous history, then we’re not just dumbing down education. We’re forgetting our own story.

And when we forget our own story, we’re easy to manipulate. We stop asking questions. We confuse certainty with truth.

So here’s my hope.

That we teach history not just as a set of facts, but as a way of thinking.

That we expect more from civic engagement than noisy town halls.

That we stop asking people what they want and start asking why they want it, and what it will take.

That we invest not just in infrastructure, but in informed decision making, in the skills and tools communities need to think together.

Because democracy isn’t just about who wins the vote. It’s about whether we can still talk to each other after.

Additional reading option

Top Australian writers urge Albanese to abolish Job-Ready Graduates, calling their humanities degrees life changing

Humanities faculties are being restructured not because they cost too much to run, but because they are perceived to return too little. Yet the skills they foster – interpretive reasoning, ethical judgement, historical understanding – remain essential to democratic life.

This post is dedicated to a very wise man,  Peter Bailey Brown , who I wish I met earlier

Peter Brown is a man whose legacy continues to unfold in paddocks, policies, and in the lives of the people he’s helped along the way. From the paddocks of Cudal to the boardrooms of international development…

Peter has never lost sight of what matters: listening, learning, and finding practical, human ways forward.

#HistoryMatters #CriticalThinking #PublicJudgement #DeliberativeDemocracy #CivicLeadership #Neoliberalism #EducationReform #DemocracyInPractice #CommunityVoice #LearningFromHistory #TeachTheWholeStory

Author Lynne StrongPosted on July 22, 2025May 24, 2026Categories Behind the Byline, Social Justice and Change, Thought Leadership and OpinionTags Chris Wallace, civic leadership, community voice, Critical Thinking, David Marr, deliberative democracy, democracy in practice, education reform, history matters, Jay Weatherill, Late Night Live, learning from history, neoliberalism, Peter Bailey Brown, public judgement, teach the whole story, The decline of history teaching threatens our future leaders

What I Thought I Was Doing And What I’ve Learnt Instead

When I first began writing opinion pieces for the local paper, I thought I was there to change minds.

I believed that if I presented a strong enough argument, grounded in evidence and guided by conviction, I could shift people’s thinking. I thought that was my role: to persuade.

But over time, I’ve come to understand something more important. My job wasn’t to convince, it was to inform. It was to bring forward the issues that matter, so others could think for themselves. To create space for people to feel informed and empowered enough to participate. That, I’ve realised, is the quiet work of democracy.

I’ve also learnt that true influence rarely comes from telling others what to think. It comes from listening well, sharing openly, and making room for perspectives beyond your own. It’s about moving from an “I” focus to a “we” focus, not because we all agree, but because we believe in one another’s right to engage with the hard stuff.

This shift in understanding mirrors what I’ve seen in the movement for citizen juries and deliberative democracy. These processes don’t hand over power to the loudest voice, they invite ordinary people to consider complex issues deeply and together. And time and again, the results are thoughtful, measured, and grounded in lived experience. Participants surprise us, not because they suddenly become experts, but because they approach problems with humility, empathy, and care.

Still, the sector faces a challenge. It needs more than stories, it needs impact data. Decision-makers, especially in government, often remain resistant even in the face of compelling examples: on homelessness, electricity pricing, insurance reform, climate action.

There’s a frustrating gap between what works and what’s politically safe.

Part of the problem is fear. If politicians adopt citizen jury recommendations without scrutiny, they risk backlash. If they reject them, it breeds public cynicism. “Fake consultation drives people mad,” as former Premier Jay Weatherill warned.

It takes courage to own big problems, to share decision-making, and to act on what the public decides.

We also face a legitimacy paradox. Should citizen assemblies be embedded in our systems before they’re widely accepted? Or should they prove their value first in ad hoc ways?

The answer, I believe, lies in outcomes. Don’t make the process the debate, make the results visible. Show what people are capable of when they’re trusted to think together.

I’ve learnt that writing, like deliberation, isn’t about control. It’s about contribution.

It’s not about shaping the outcome, but about helping shape the conditions in which thoughtful decisions can emerge. It’s about lifting the level of conversation.

And that, to me, is the heart of it. Whether in journalism or policy, change happens when people stop trying to win and start trying to understand.

When we stop shouting from the margins and start gathering in the middle.

When we replace certainty with curiosity, and “I” with “we”.

#DeliberativeDemocracy #CitizenVoice #LeadershipWithCourage #ListenFirst #TrustThePublic

Author Lynne StrongPosted on July 21, 2025May 24, 2026Categories Behind the Byline, Social Justice and ChangeTags from persuasion to participation, informed not convinced, real consultation not performance, trust the process trust the people, we think better together

How to Master the Fine Art of Bureaucratic Spin (No Soul Required)

Satirical representation. No actual clowns were employed in the making of this council.

Looking to pivot away from meaningful communication and into a career where vague language, circular logic and passive voice reign supreme? You might just have what it takes to become a spin doctor in local government.

At Kiama Council, we’ve seen the craft honed to such dizzying heights, it really ought to be a university major. So, for those inspired by recent exhibitions of bureaucratic ballet, here’s a breakdown of the essential skill set, and the degree you’d need, to enter this murky but marvellously well-defended world.

📚 Degree: Bachelor of Arts (in Obfuscation and Delay)

Double major in Strategic Ambiguity and Circular Consultation

Core Subjects Might Include:

  • Intro to Passive Voice
    “Mistakes were made.”
    Learn how to strip agency from every sentence so no one ever knows who did what, or why.

  • Advanced Euphemism
    Translate “we stuffed it” into “unexpected budgetary variance within a dynamic delivery environment.”

  • Spin Cycle 101
    Turn every negative into an ‘opportunity for growth’, preferably in 600 words or more.

  • Community Engagement (Optional Elective)
    Because listening is optional. But looking like you’re listening? That’s gold.

  • Excel Acrobatics
    Essential for hiding real meaning inside colourful bar graphs with zero context.

  • Public Speaking for Politicians and Possums
    How to appear calm, cute, and a little bit confused, while firmly refusing to answer the question.

🛠 Real-World Skills Required

  • Deadline Evasion:
    An internal clock that knows how to stall until after the next election cycle.

  • Email Mastery:
    Say everything while saying nothing. Bonus points for including the words “noted,” “strategic,” and “ongoing.”

  • The Long Pause:
    Perfected by council spokespersons everywhere. Gives the illusion of deep thought while waiting for legal to respond.

  • Meeting Bingo:
    Learn how to use terms like “framework,” “lens,” “alignment” and “stakeholder pathways” in a sentence without blinking.

At Kiama Council, we don’t just admire this art form, we live it. From “monitoring future needs” to “aligning with state frameworks,” every missed opportunity is neatly packaged and returned to sender with a bow and a hyperlink to a 72-page PDF no one asked for.

So if you’ve ever read a council report and found yourself more confused than when you started, don’t worry, it’s not you. It’s working as intended.

#KiamaCouncil #BureaucraticSpin #LocalGovLife #PassiveVoiceMasters #StrategicAmbiguity #StakeholderBingo #YouveBeenFrameworked

Author Lynne StrongPosted on July 16, 2025May 24, 2026Categories Abuse of Power, Behind the Byline, Social Justice and ChangeTags bureaucratic ballet, Kiama Council classics, local government logic, reading between the buzzwords, spin doctoring for beginners, who writes this stuff?

The Suggestion Box at Kiama Council Looks a Lot Like a Shredder

There’s a photo doing the rounds, a paper shredder with a sign that reads “Suggestion Box.” It would be funny if it didn’t feel so familiar.

Because when it comes to Kiama Council’s Housing Strategy, that’s exactly how community consultation feels to many people, invited to speak, only to watch their input disappear.

Since the release of version three of the Housing Strategy, a wave of feedback  has landed on councillors’ desks. Policy experts, community advocates, planners, and long-time residents have stepped forward. Some are offering bold ideas, like a Kiama Housing Innovation Team to tap into local knowledge and test new models. Others are raising concerns, that the document still ignores public feedback, lacks affordable housing solutions, and reads more like it was designed to tick state boxes than reflect this community.

But here’s the bigger question,

❓What stops a Council from welcoming innovation?
❓From inviting in the people already doing the work?
❓From trusting the community it serves?

It’s not a lack of expertise, we have that in spades.
It’s not a hostile public, we’re showing up, offering ideas, asking to be involved.
And it’s not the community’s fault that Kiama is only now getting a housing strategy. That should’ve happened 15 years ago.

So, what is it?

In many organisations, fear plays a quiet role. Fear of losing control. Fear of getting it wrong. Fear of opening the door to something that can’t be neatly managed. But the truth is, there is more to gain than there is to fear.
Innovation doesn’t weaken an organisation, it strengthens it.
Collaboration doesn’t dilute leadership, it deepens it.

Kiama is one of the most informed, engaged LGAs in the state. The expertise is here. The ideas are here. The willingness is here.

What’s missing is the invitation.

The solutions aren’t waiting in a future consultant’s report. They’re already here, in our community, in our builders, renters, designers, youth workers, social entrepreneurs, and retirees. They just need to be brought to the table.

This isn’t a call-out, it’s a call in.

Let’s stop shredding the feedback and start building the trust.

#KiamaCouncil #KiamaHousing #HousingStrategy #CommunityVoices
#PlanningReform #LocalLeadership #HousingJustice #CollaborativePlanning
#ListenActBuild #InnovationNotTickBoxes #UrbanDemocracy #InclusiveGrowth

Author Lynne StrongPosted on July 15, 2025May 24, 2026Categories Behind the Byline, Housing Dilemma, Social Justice and ChangeTags bold ideas welcome, community-led solutions, don’t shred our voices, from consultation to collaboration, housing innovation starts here, Kiama deserves better, listen then lead, local expertise matters, planning with people not just paperwork, trust starts with inclusion

Are we being gaslit by our own Council?

Moving On Without Looking Back Isn’t Leadership. It’s Evasion.

There’s a growing call within Kiama Council to “move forward” on developer contributions, to focus on new frameworks, technical capabilities, and future improvements. That instinct is understandable. For newly elected councillors, the pressure to defend decisions they didn’t make must be exhausting. No one expects them to carry that weight alone.

But the issue here isn’t the future. It’s the refusal to face the past.

The latest Council report into Section 7.11 and 7.12 developer contributions presents itself as a review. It’s not. It’s an administrative summary, a carefully curated narrative that avoids the most troubling questions.

  • It does not explain why Council allowed legally required contribution plans to lapse without replacement.
  • It does not acknowledge the nearly $1 million in lost infrastructure funding from developments like Golden Valley. See previous blog post: How Kiama lost $970,000 in developer contributions and no one explained why
  • It does not explain why staff continued applying 7.11 levies after the plans had expired, resulting in $1.5 million in overcharges.
  • And it certainly does not address why this information was omitted from the CEO’s public statements earlier this year.

Instead, we are told that everything is under control. That staff have the skills to prepare new plans. That forward planning is happening “across all departments.”

But if no one inside Council can admit what went wrong, how can we trust that the same systems and staff will get it right this time?

While the report confirms the repeal of the 7.11 plans and notes that overcharges have been refunded, it still fails to address the most critical issues:

  • Why the required five-year review process was ignored

  • Why Council allowed the plans to lapse without any replacement

  • Why the Golden Valley development, with its $1 million 7.11 condition, is excluded entirely from the analysis

  • Why the CEO’s earlier response omitted this development

  • What steps are being taken to prevent this kind of governance failure from happening again

  • Why the review ignored key issues raised by councillors and the community, including those I raised in good faith

  • It also fails to acknowledge the damage caused when a CEO publicly undermines the credibility of an elected councillor, then commissions a review that examines only what suits the executive agenda. This was not a full or independent review. It was a tightly controlled exercise in reputation management, not truth-telling.

The people responsible for these failures should not be allowed to rewrite history with a few carefully worded lines in a report.

If Council is serious about moving forward with the community, it must first confront what went wrong, tell the truth, and start rebuilding trust from there.

BTW If you’ve ever read a council report and found yourself more confused than when you started, don’t worry, it’s not you. It’s working as intended.

#KiamaCouncil #AccountabilityMatters #DeveloperContributions #GoldenValley #PlanningFail #Governance #LocalGovernment #TransparencyNow #CommunityDeservesBetter #InfrastructureFunding

Author Lynne StrongPosted on July 14, 2025May 22, 2026Categories Abuse of Power, Behind the Byline, Citizen Journalism, Thought Leadership and OpinionTags community trust, council integrity, Developer Contributions, Golden Valley omission, governance matters, infrastructure funding loss, planning failures, Public Accountability, Section 7.11, selective transparency, truth before progress2 Comments on Are we being gaslit by our own Council?

Housing Strategies and Hollow Promises and Why Listening Isn’t Enough

It’s time to stop drafting strategies that sit on shelves. Let’s start building the courage to act.

If you’ve ever read a local government housing strategy, chances are it felt familiar, even if you were reading it for the first time. They tend to follow a pattern:
✔️ They acknowledge the issues.
✔️ They summarise the feedback.
✔️ They speak the language of care, equity, and inclusion.
But scratch the surface, and you’re often left asking: Where’s the action?

The latest Kiama Municipal Council Draft Housing Strategy in our region is no exception. To its credit, it captures what matters to people: housing that’s affordable, developments that respect the character of our towns, and planning that keeps pace with infrastructure. It admits where voices were missing, renters, younger people, Aboriginal residents, and it publishes community feedback clearly and transparently. That’s important.

But recognition is not reform. We don’t need another document that nods along with community concerns, only to drift into safe territory, generalities, delays, and vague promises of “sensitive growth” and “further consideration.” We need something braver.

Our housing problems aren’t unique, with communities across the country  grappling with rising prices, stagnant wages, rental insecurity, and generational lockout.

And in many places, solutions are already being tried. Community land trusts. Build-to-rent models. Tiny home villages. Prefabricated homes built by social enterprise. Councils developing and retaining their own affordable housing stock. There are people doing incredible work, often outside the traditional planning system, because they’ve had no choice but to act.

So why isn’t that reflected in our local strategy?

There’s no commitment to identifying what’s working elsewhere. No plan to pilot innovation. No acknowledgement of the community-led efforts already happening here. And no tools, no inclusionary zoning, no local affordability targets, no plan for securing housing for workers or renters or older people wanting to downsize and stay close to family.

Instead, we get the usual safety net of “alignment with state frameworks” and “monitoring future needs.” It’s the language of delay.

Listening should be the starting point  – not the end.

This is about ambition – not just process.

A genuinely community-driven strategy would do more than summarise feedback. It would:

  • Name and support local innovators already making change.

  • Seek out bold ideas from elsewhere and ask: could this work here?

  • Test small-scale pilots and learn from them.

  • Move beyond consultation and into co-creation, especially with those most affected by housing stress.

Transparent processes and pretty reports are not enough. People need homes,  and they need leaders ready to do more than listen.

It’s time to stop drafting strategies that sit on shelves. Let’s start building the courage to act.

#HousingStrategy #AffordableHousing #CommunityLedPlanning #InclusiveGrowth #LocalVoices #BuildBetter #PlanningForPeople #HousingJustice #PolicyToAction

Author Lynne StrongPosted on July 11, 2025May 24, 2026Categories Behind the Byline, Citizen Journalism, Housing Dilemma, Social Justice and Change, Sustainable Development Insights and SDGs, Thought Leadership and OpinionTags bold leadership begins here, community voices matter, future-focused planning, homes people can afford, housing solutions not slogans, innovation over inaction, learn from what works, listen act deliver, not just heard but included, real plans not empty promises, Section 7.112 Comments on Housing Strategies and Hollow Promises and Why Listening Isn’t Enough

When leadership fails, culture tells the truth

As I’ve said before, you can do all the leadership training in the world. It doesn’t always make you a leader. But what it does do, importantly, is help you recognise the difference. It helps you identify real leaders when you see them. More importantly, it sharpens your ability to spot toxic cultures. It teaches you to recognise when someone has enough self-awareness to grow, and when someone doesn’t. And once you see it, you can’t unsee it.

Leadership is hard. Public leadership is harder. But when harm is done, whether through action or silence, real leadership requires something more than defensiveness. It requires self-reflection.

If a CEO were to pause and look inward, here is what genuine self-awareness might sound like.

How did I get here?
I have spent my career navigating complicated political environments. I have seen corruption up close. I have worked in organisations where things went very wrong. I was not charged, but I was part of that system. I saw what unchecked power does. I know what it costs communities. I know what it costs people.

Did I bring that culture with me, even unknowingly?
Did I carry forward habits shaped by survival in a dysfunctional system? Did I seek control where I should have encouraged transparency? Have I mistaken compliance for leadership?

Have I confused being right with being in charge?
Leadership is not about managing perception. It is about creating space for accountability and trust. When people around me challenged decisions or asked difficult questions, did I see that as threat instead of engagement?

What role have I played in the harm others say they’ve experienced?
When people say they felt targeted, silenced, or undermined during my leadership, do I hear that as a personal attack or as something to sit with? Have I considered that harm does not require intention, that impact matters more than defence?

What am I afraid will happen if I admit I got it wrong?
Is it fear of looking weak? Fear of being held to account? Or is it fear of stepping into the unknown, into a space where control is replaced by vulnerability?

What would it look like to lead differently, now?
It would mean opening space for truth. It would mean commissioning an independent review. It would mean picking up the phone to those who were hurt and saying, “I want to understand.” It would mean listening, not defending. Owning, not spinning. Rebuilding, not retreating.

Because surviving a broken system is not the same as transforming one.

And if we do not break the cycle, we become it.

#LeadershipMatters #ToxicCulture #CouncilAccountability #TrueLeadership #CommunityWellbeing #EthicalGovernance #PublicTrust

Author Lynne StrongPosted on June 18, 2025May 22, 2026Categories Behind the Byline, Thought Leadership and OpinionTags community trust, culture of fear, Ethical Leadership, Kiama, Leadership, local government, Public Accountability, toxic workplace

When Kiama Council stops listening, the community steps up

In Kiama, we pride ourselves on being engaged, fair-minded, and not afraid to speak up when something feels wrong. So when members of this community take the time to submit formal complaints to Council -backed by evidence, dates, and clear requests for action – it’s not done lightly.

It comes from a belief that our local democracy still matters. And that someone, somewhere inside the system, will listen.  to put their concerns in writing, cite documents, ask for a review  – there’s a basic expectation: that someone, somewhere, will respond.

 

A simple acknowledgement.

A record of receipt.

A sign that the system is functioning.

But that didn’t happen here.

 

I submitted a formal complaint to Kiama Council about the handling of the ICAC referral. So did others. We raised questions about process, timing, and accountability. We asked for a review.

 

The response? Silence.

Not even a note from the Public Officer to confirm the request had been received. No response from the CEO. No indication that the concerns were being treated with the seriousness they deserve.

And this is what makes people give up. Not disagreement. Not debate. But the sense that no one is listening.

 

So let me say this clearly:

We are listening to each other.

We are keeping records.

We are not going away.

The community sets the standard.

We expect better.

 

We expect that when three councillors are referred to an anti-corruption body and then cleared, someone in Council will have the decency to correct the record — not leave a misleading notice online for months, casting doubt long after the facts are known.

 

We expect that formal requests will be logged, replied to, and dealt with transparently – not ignored.

 

And we expect that those tasked with upholding the integrity of the system will do more than protect it when convenient. They will protect it when it’s hard. When it’s messy. When it means holding powerful people to account.

The question is not whether councillors or community members are brave enough to raise these issues.

 

We already have.

The question is whether Council is willing to deal with the answers.

 

#KiamaCouncil #LocalDemocracy #CouncilAccountability #ICACReferral #GovernanceMatters #CommunityVoice #TransparencyNow #PublicTrust #LeadershipStandards #CivicEngagement

Author Lynne StrongPosted on June 17, 2025May 22, 2026Categories Behind the Byline, Thought Leadership and OpinionTags Accountability, civic integrity, community advocacy, Developer Contributions, ICAC, Kiama, Kiama Council, Kiama politics, local government, public transparency

When silence becomes complicity in local democracy

If you are new here, welcome. I write about issues affecting local democracy, governance, and accountability in the Kiama local government area, with a focus on asking the questions others might avoid.

Three councillors. A high-stakes development vote. A referral to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. An election three months away.

These are the facts. What followed was silence.

It is now publicly known that three Kiama councillors were referred to ICAC after a unanimous vote to reject a controversial development application. That referral became public knowledge not through formal channels, but through the media. The councillors themselves say they were not notified by Council. ICAC has since dismissed the referral.

No action. No investigation. No findings.
And still, no public correction.

For those watching closely, the timing felt less like coincidence and more like interference. A reputational blow landing just as the election campaign began, targeting councillors who had been vocal on governance, transparency, and community rights. If that was not an attempt to influence the election narrative, then what was it?

And yet here we are. New councillors have been elected. Fresh mandates have been claimed. And not one formal effort has been made to review what happened or ensure it never happens again.

This raises a harder question: why?

Why would any incoming councillor, elected to represent the interests of their community, not want to investigate a potential misuse of process? Why would they not want to protect future candidates and colleagues from the same kind of political weaponisation?

This is not about loyalty to the past council. It is about the future of local democracy. If elected officials can be referred to an anti-corruption body without due process, then left to wear the reputational damage even after dismissal, something is deeply wrong.

And if that damage can be timed to land just before an election, we are not talking about governance. We are talking about manipulation.

The community deserves better. Not in whispers, not behind closed doors, but in public.

If there is nothing to hide, there should be nothing to fear in a review. Silence may feel safe, but over time it corrodes trust. And trust, once lost, is difficult to regain.

Local democracy does not fail overnight. It fails when decent people say nothing because speaking up feels too risky. The real question now is not what happened then, but what our current leaders will do with what they know now.

This article reflects my personal views and interpretations, based on publicly available information and in the interest of fostering open and accountable local government. It is not my intention to accuse any individual of wrongdoing, but to encourage reflection and action on matters that affect trust in our democratic processes.

#Kiama #LocalGovernment #CouncilTransparency #DemocracyMatters #PublicTrust #AccountabilityNow #ICAC #Governance #CivicEngagement #CommunityVoice #LeadershipMatters

Author Lynne StrongPosted on June 16, 2025May 22, 2026Categories Behind the Byline, Thought Leadership and OpinionTags Civic Accountability, community voice, ICAC, Kiama, Kiama Council, local democracy, local government

Local democracy shouldn’t feel like defiance

Why did it have to come to this

That’s the question I keep circling back to.

 Why was it necessary to write a blog post in the first place?

Why did councillors feel they couldn’t speak freely?

Why was silence the safest option for so many, when the real damage was being done out in the open?

 If local democracy was working as it should, none of this would’ve been needed. There would have been transparency from the beginning. There would have been open dialogue between council and community. And there would have been clear lines between power and accountability—not blurred ones.

But the moment I stepped into a role that involved naming what I saw and asking questions about how power operates, it became clear what kind of culture I was stepping into.

I’m not brave. I’m persistent.

And I’m someone who understands the value of truth, even when it’s inconvenient.

 Anyone stepping into a civic reporting role, especially in a small town, should expect to be met with pushback. But what they shouldn’t expect is silence from those with the power to make things better.

I wrote because I believe in democratic process.

Because I believe a community has a right to know how decisions are made, who is making them, and whether the process is fair.

 This shouldn’t require courage. It should be normal.

It should be part of how our systems work.

Instead, we have a system where saying something out loud feels like an act of defiance.

 I spoke up because I care too much to pretend nothing is wrong.

 And here’s the thing: if someone is willing to put in the hours, do the reading, follow the trail of decisions and connect the dots – why would anyone think they’re going to give up now?

#Kiama #RegionalMedia #CivicVoice #CommunityAdvocacy #LocalDemocracy #IndependentJournalism #GrassrootsLeadership #DoDemocracyDifferently

Author Lynne StrongPosted on June 15, 2025May 22, 2026Categories Behind the Byline, Citizen Journalism, Thought Leadership and OpinionTags Accountability, civic reporting, Community Engagement, Kiama, Kiama Council, leadership culture, local democracy, local government, Public Interest Journalism, Section 7.11, transparency2 Comments on Local democracy shouldn’t feel like defiance

Posts pagination

Previous page Page 1 … Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Next page

SEARCH

Recent Posts

  • We elected them to watch the road. Turning the bus around means taking back the wheel.
  • The science of how the watch dog ends up working for the dog.
  • Daily News Roundup – 4 June 2026
  • The Paddock That Grew Nothing
  • Daily News Round Up – 24 May 2026

Follow Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,389 other subscribers

Categories

Archives

  • Home
  • Empowering Sustainable and Just Futures
  • SynergyScape Solutions – Embracing the Grey – My Journey in Values and Communication
Clover Hill Diaries – Join Me and Be the Change Powered by WordPress.com.
Clover Hill Diaries – Join Me and Be the Change
Proudly powered by WordPress Theme: Twenty Sixteen.

Loading Comments...